Women's studies would benefit in two ways. First, the accumulation of Harvard and Radcliffe resources would make for a stronger operation. Second, the presence of Radcliffe in the running of the concentration might keep Harvard on its administrative toes, and prevent Harvard from reneging on whatever commitment it makes to women's studies.

A second role that Radcliffe might play is as an active promoter of undergraduate extracurriculars. Currently the Office for the Arts, the Radcliffe Union of Students, Education for Action, and a handful of other organizations get Radcliffe funds. Certainly, though, Radcliffe students are active in more than these groups.

By expanding its support of undergraduate groups, Radcliffe would be forced to assess, as it has not done for years, the situation and needs of its students.

Radcliffe would then realize, for instance, that no one has heard of the Murray Research Center or the Center for the Study of Interdependence, two Radcliffe programs which are pursuing interesting lines of study in total darkness.

By dipping again into the undergraduate world, at the cost of just a few thousand dollars, Radcliffe might be able to position itself for a revitalization of student interest in the institution.

And these two roles are not the only ones. Radcliffe might also push for Harvard credit for its seminars. It might host undergraduate classes in Radcliffe buildings. It might undertake to publicize its resources more effectively among undergrads, perhaps, crassly, by stamping its logo on all that it funds, the way Harvard does. But these are just random examples. The underlying point is that Radcliffe need not have interpreted its merger-that-dares-not-speak-its-name in a manner that absolves it of all responsibility for acting like a College.